St. Paul daily globe., 1887-09-28
IN THE RAILWAY WORLD.
An Important 0pinien by Judge Hoffman
Rendered in the Courts at San
Francisco.
The Milwaukee G st. Paul Road Makes
Rather Serious Cut in Lum-
ber Rates
And the Northern Pacific and Mt IA
Lines Met the Same Very
Promptly.

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 27.-Judge
Hoffman, of the United States district
court, who sat with Justice Field, of the
supreme court. and Judges SAWYER and
Sabin, has filed dissenting opinion in
the matter of the petition of the Pacific
railway commission to compel Leland
Stanford to explain certain vouchers of
the Central Pacific company. 1t
had been understood until to-day
that Judge Hoffman acquiesced
In the opinion of the other three juristS.
In the opinion, Judge Hoffman says, in
substance, that the act of creating the
commission after comforting the power
on the commissioners to require attend
ance of witnesses and production of
books, provides that to that end they
may invoke the aid of courts, and power
is given to the courts in case of contul-
macy to issue an order and refusal to
obey such order may be punished as
contempt. Similar provisions are con-
tanned ih the interstate commerce act.
Ii the grounds on which the decision in
the present case are in great part
based, be correct. the court, he said,
must be refused, not only to these two
commissions, but also to all commissions
of inquiry created by congress to obtain
information to enlighten legislation.
Judge Hoffman thinks it clear that the
right to require information in aid of
legislation is necessary and therefore a
power conferred upon congress by the
constitution by necessary implication !;
that as it can only be effectually asserted
through and by aid of the courts, it is
the duty and rights of courts to furnish
that aid. Judge Hoffman then turns to
THE SECOND GROUND
upon which the court refused to lend its
aid, namely: That no Jurisdiction has
been given to the court under the con-
stitution, nor can it be conferred by
congress to entertain an application of
this nature, because there is no lease"
or controversy" before it, such as is
contemplated in the provisions which
define the extent of judicial power of
the United States. Judge Hoffman
claims that questions raised by inquiry
are in the highest sense judicial in their
nature. After considering this at some
length he says that the laws of congress
provide that compulsory process may
issue to obtain testimony of witnesses.
The exercise of this power is not limited
to cases actually pending in court, but
extends to cases where litigation is eX-
pected or apprehended. He refers to
the powers confided in and extended to
grand juries by courts, and contends
that the second objection fails. He
adds that the doctrine enunciated in
the decision in effect denies to con-
gress the right to invoke the aid
of courts to secure by compulsory
process attendance of witnesses and to
the court the right of affording aid if
invoked. The immediate effect of this
decision is to cripple, if not paralyze,
the commissioners in the discharge of
Urge part of their duties. If the wit
ness had been ordered to answer and
had refused he would have been at
tached for contempt of court
and committed to the Gus
tody OF a marshal. From this
custody he could have at once been re-
leased on habeas corpus and held to bail
in nominal amount. Important ques-
tiOnS raised could thus have been speed
lily submitted to the supreme court for
final decision without the slightest op-
preston or even inconvenience to the
witness. | know of no way in which
the decision now made can be reviewed
by that high tribunal.